Additions/suggestions for both lists are solicited in the comments section, please.

Only the first item could be considered both pro-natalist and eugenic, or at least not blatantly dysgenic. That Dan's list of anti-natalism characteristics is primarily directed at the white middle and working classes, while the pro-natalist list is especially relevant to NAMs is not a coincidence. Don't misconstrue a little devil's advocate work on my part as indicative of support for the civilizational destructiveness cheered on by the left.

11 comments:

The Left wants to restrict many of the economic activities that can provide family-supporting wages to non-college men: oil/gas/coal/nuclear, mining, heavy manufacturing, fishing, logging, construction, etc.

Ok, I thought long and hard on this one, and I came up with an example that's pro-natalist and not dysgenic: the left's indifference towards family unity (i.e. tolerance of divorce). Per the GSS white people who have divorced have .2 more children that those who haven't (I assume because some of them remarry and decide to make "ours" children) and the difference is the same for both sexes. For all respondents the difference is greater for men and less for women but overall it is about the same.

The GSS also suggests that divorce is not particularly associated with higher or lower IQ (surprising to me; this could be wrong) or with political party, other than independents being worse, as is usual, but I think this is a matter of ideology seeping into culture and affecting people of all affiliations equally.

I'm not saying the left is pro-divorce or anything, but as someone who thinks culture is important, I perceive them as indifferent to marriage other than believing gays and lesbians should definitely be able to do it and that women should not suffer if a marriage fails. The right at least reserves a spot of honor for large, intact families.

Adding to Jokah Macpherson's comment, liberal divorce judges who hand down outrageous divorce settlements. The cost lies on the men, who can no longer afford to remarry and have a new family. Or if they do they are very poor, have less chance to prosper than their male cohort. In general this gives the divorced women leisure. It is an incentive not to remarry as that reduces leisure and requires a great deal more work. Thus they rarely have more children. This is in the white world, I think things are quite different for black people.

In the sense that because the left doesn't condemn divorce people are more likely to think of marriage as less of a high stakes game and thus more willing to tie the knot and, as a consequence, have kids they otherwise wouldn't have? Am I following you correctly?

I don't think you are exactly following my line of thought. I was saying that one side effect of more divorce is more remarriage and from my experience remarried people often have at least one additional child together (vs. children from prior marriage) that they might not have had otherwise had they stayed with their original spouse.

I can think of two examples of people I know who were only children until they were 17 and then their parents had another child with a second spouse. The GSS seems to support this theory but I can't be certain of cause-effect.

Readers should be reminded of one of the orignal articles in this field which captured the stark reality of the liberal baby problem.

http://www.isteve.com/babygap.htm

That article should have won a Pulitzer but alas not in modern America. Steve Sailer feels the 'dirt gap' (cost of living) is the issue, but it seems pretty clear to me that liberal ideas themselves are bad for white fertility.

Social conservatives' central thesis that children should spring from marriage is a highly eugenic notion if it is followed. Getting married before having children is a strong marker of higher intelligence and education in 2012 and the trend is apparently not new. The demands of Christendom across Europe over a thousand years that sex should be within marriage and a man couldn't marry unless he couldn't be a provider meant that the less successful married later if at all. And with strong sexual morality still in force, unmarried people typically just didn't have sex, even if it meant dying a virgin. It has been suggested (Maybe HBD Chick or others) that this was a prime driver toward the development of greater intelligence across Christendom.

Culture clearly played a central role in fostering eugenic / dysenic trends across time because if intelligence were only an artifact of having to survive harsh winters then the Eskimos would have all the Nobels.

Maybe Judiasm did Christendom one better by historically conferring the highest marriage market value on scholars.

As for the Clinton-era welfare reforms you are right: They are to be praised (and were bitterly opposed by the left at the time).

So why in the heck did Obama absurdly attempt to gut welfare reform (by trying to remove the work requirement) before he was stopped by the right?

There is no method to Obama's madness I think. If he was pro-civilization, why would he support unbelievably backward Islamists in the overthrow of all semblance of civilization in Libya and Egypt?Friggin' Egypt. That hurts. To lose all remnant of civilization in such an enormous country...

I would note that the left does have some eugenic elements worthy of note, particularly in reducing teen birth rates. Teen births tend, I think, to be dysgenic.

* The left has worked hard to reduce teen pregnancy through education and free prophylactics everywhere.

this is a tough one to call.

In 1960 there were twice as many teen births (per capita), and 90% of them were to married women aged 18-19. Now there are half as many teen births (per capita) and 90% are to unmarried women aged 18-19. Progress? Not really because it means there are about 5 times as many illegitimate kids of teen moms (that we have to support rather than their fathers) and 90% fewer born to married teen mothers. The husbands back then generally weren't teens nor were they low life scum, just regular Joe's who married a young woman and started a family. Is the change eugenic? not really because it only lowered the rate of young women marrying decent guys and having children within that marriage. Having fewer good folks marry and have kids while exploding the fraction of illegitimate kids born to ne'er do well parents is not progress.